I have recently had the pleasure of being a state's witness in a 1st degree murder trial as a result of my job duties.

I was there for the opening statements of the prosecution (the defense deferred, presumably until the state rests) and watched them question five witnesses ahead of me.

Based on my knowledge of the case it seems fairly open and shut guilty.

To wit, my question. Is it plausible for a defense team to phone it in for a paycheck when they know there is little hope of an acquittal? Granted, I have not heard the defense's case nor has anyone as the trial is still ongoing, but I seemed to notice inaccuracies and contradictions in the testimony of the witnesses before me that were not jumped on by the defense.

One witness in particular was the one right before me. He was the first law enforcement officer on scene. During his testimony he sounded exceedingly daft and made several contradictions and outright inaccuracies about who was on the scene before he arrived and after he arrived, but prior to any other law enforcement. I know this because I was there and he testified that the victim's fiance and 3 firefighters were the only ones on the scene when he barred further entry.

I know EMS is the forgotten ones, but I assume that the defense has a timeline of people on scene and a list of witnesses.

Anyway, they never question him on these inaccuracies during cross examination.

Even more mind boggling is that the deputy is no longer a deputy as he was dismissed for misconduct a few years ago. He was only on the job for about 4 years total. Remember, he sounded quite daft on the stand. I do not know the nature of the misconduct, but the defense never brought it up or questioned him about it.

Shouldn't they have questioned him about that as it would potentially call into question his credibility as a witness, especially being the first law enforcement on scene along with obvious inaccuracies in his testimony?

To further add to his daftness, as an aside, he went to the stand with several papers and answered the first few questions from the state while reading off the paper. The defense did pounce on this and were grated discovery of the papers and the deputy was not allowed to have them back while on the stand.

To me, it would seem that a proper defense could have dismantled his credibility on this case and brought into question all further evidence that was subsequently collected.

Perhaps I am wrong and that is why I'm asking here? Maybe I watch too much Law & Order.

Here's the link to the latest article on the trial in case you're interested:

Sometimes the cross examiner would stay away from what appears to be obvious fruitful questions for strategy reasons,

For example, the witness may make a huge blunder on the placement or existence of evidence that is contradicted by documentary evidence from another witness.

The lawyer may like the bulk of the testimony of a witness because it falls in line with their theory of the case, and crossing the witness on issues that would call the witnesses observations into question undercut the theory of the case.

Sometimes trials are just long pleas of guilty. Defense attorneys may not have any reasonable means of winning the case, but cannot take the plea, or need to try the case to preserve appellate review, i.e., the judge made a huge blunder in pre-trial motions, like a motion to suppress evidence or a confession.

And it is perfectly reasonable to conclude that the defense lawyer is lazy, or stupid, or just doesn’t care.

In my experience that is the least likely circumstance.

Criminal defense attorneys are a breed apart, but it is rare for them to just phone it in.

“The greatest thing we can do just unite and love on each other and like, no barriers, no borders, like, we all need to just co-exist.”

I suppose there can be a mechanism to prevent a person from being subjected to the death penalty, but since I’ve been away from the criminal side for a long time I can’t really speak to that now.

I stayed in the SAO specifically to prosecute a death penalty case. The defense attorney in that case asked me to come to his office to discuss the case after we declared we would seek the death penalty.

He had a stack of medical records about a couple of feet high documenting multiple hospitalizations.

The defendant would purposely hurt himself and was diagnosed with Munchausen Syndrome. He would eat glass, throw himself in front of cars, take a knife and stab himself, and a host of other terrible things. He actually threw himself in front of an ambulance. I guess he was trying to cut out the middleman.

Based on these records, we decided to plea him out for life without the possibility of parole and an agreement that he wouldn’t file any appeals or post conviction motions.

So, in my experience, the prosecutor can be convinced to drop the death penalty in certain circumstances.

“The greatest thing we can do just unite and love on each other and like, no barriers, no borders, like, we all need to just co-exist.”

One of my fiancees law professors is a practicing criminal defense attorney she said the first thing she tells a client is "It's not my job to get you a not guilty verdict, my job is to make sure you get a fair trial and the prosecution dots their Is and crosses their Ts."

"Defense attorneys James Davis and Jay White, in an unusual strategy, presented no evidence on their client’s behalf, and Johnson elected to not testify in her own defense, which is not uncommon."

Still kind of seems like they're phoning it in or, maybe much more likely, have nothing to work with as far as a legitimate defense.

It seems like deliberations are going to start soon and I'd like to go to see the verdict being read, but who knows when that will actually happen. I'f I'm off I might go to see impact statements and sentencing if she is found guilty.

They sent the jury home on Tuesday and discussed instructions for them after that. So I think they began deliberations Wednesday morning at 0930 and I checked the website at 11am and the guilty verdict was in. I don't know how long that had been up. It seems they deliberated for about 30 seconds.

Later I saw that the judged ordered life. I was wanting to go see the impact statements, but it happened too fast.

Apparently, during the prosecutions's closing statements, the defendant interrupted and wanted to say something in which the judge promptly denied saying she declined to testify and she won't start now, or something to that effect.

just came across this thread and was stunned at one aspect. Your saying you were a witness in the case and were allowed to sit in on other testimony BEFORE you testified. That wouldn't happen in New York. How can you hear what another witness says before you take the stand ? Idiotic , then you could alter your testimony to match what the prior witness said. I was in criminal Supreme Court for 30 years and never heard of that happening. Makes no sense.

I still find it archaic that I have to swear in to tell the truth with my hand on a bible. I have never made a scene about it, but it does make me feel hypocritical to swear to tell the truth on what I consider a book of lies and contradictions. Tradition I guess, but the idea of losing my career to perjury charges is enough to make me want to tell the truth.

Listen I don't know you and always just commented on hockey subjects in the past. But your whole bible rant is more b.s. Again I was in the courtroom for 30 years swearing people in and if you didn't want to swear on the bible you didn't have to. You just had to say you affirmed. So the perjury stuff has nothing to do with the bible. I still find it hard to believe anywhere in the U.S. a witness can be in the courtroom and hear court rulings and testimony before they testify. That was grounds for an immediate mistrial in new york. I mean really if a person can see what is said and court rulings on what can and can't be admitted BEFORE THEY TESTIFY it would surely affect their testimony. It would be so easy to give the same details with no contradictions since you just heard their testimony.I swear on a stack of bibles I never saw or heard of that happening in a
criminal court trial. I know there are some different procedures and rules in different states but this makes no sense.

Listen I don't know you and always just commented on hockey subjects in the past. But your whole bible rant is more b.s. Again I was in the courtroom for 30 years swearing people in and if you didn't want to swear on the bible you didn't have to. You just had to say you affirmed. So the perjury stuff has nothing to do with the bible. I still find it hard to believe anywhere in the U.S. a witness can be in the courtroom and hear court rulings and testimony before they testify. That was grounds for an immediate mistrial in new york. I mean really if a person can see what is said and court rulings on what can and can't be admitted BEFORE THEY TESTIFY it would surely affect their testimony. It would be so easy to give the same details with no contradictions since you just heard their testimony.I swear on a stack of bibles I never saw or heard of that happening in a
criminal court trial. I know there are some different procedures and rules in different states but this makes no sense.

1. So we've established that you know NY rules. So that means you do not know what you are talking about when it comes down to NC rules.

2. Why the hell would I make this up. That is what really makes no sense.

3. What bible rant? What BS? I was making an observation that I prefer not to make a scene over something ultimately inconsequential when the point of me being there is to provide testimony for justice to be served.

4. I was just there because I was subpoena'd. If there is cause for a mistrial, then it is up to the lawyers and courts to decide. They told me to sit in the gallery until I was called and that's what I did.

I don't know you and I have no reason to doubt that they way thing run in NY is different than down in NC. However, I will affirm that you went from zero to cunt in record time.